Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caput et membra sunt quasi una persona mystica. Et ideo satisfactio Christi ad omnes fideles pertinet sicut ad sua membra. Inquantum etiam duo homines sunt unum in caritate, unus pro alio satisfacere potest, ut infra patebit. Non autem est similis ratio de confessione et contritione, quia satisfactio consistit in actu exteriori, ad quem assumi possunt instrumenta; inter quae computantur etiam amici. Reply Obj. 1: The head and members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ’s satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the one can atone for the other as shall be shown later (Suppl., Q. 13, A. 2). But the same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition, because atonement consists in an outward action, for which helps may be used, among which friends are to be computed. Ad secundum dicendum quod maior fuit caritas Christi patientis quam malitia crucifigentium. Et ideo plus potuit Christus satisfacere sua passione quam crucifixores offendere occidendo, in tantum quod passio Christi sufficiens fuit, et superabundans, ad satisfaciendum pro peccatis crucifigentium ipsum. Reply Obj. 2: Christ’s love was greater than His slayers’ malice: and therefore the value of His Passion in atoning surpassed the murderous guilt of those who crucified Him: so much so that Christ’s suffering was sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer’s crime. Ad tertium dicendum quod dignitas carnis Christi non est aestimanda solum secundum carnis naturam, sed secundum personam assumentem, inquantum scilicet erat caro Dei, ex quo habebat dignitatem infinitam. Reply Obj. 3: The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it—namely, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum passio Christi fuerit operata per modum sacrificii Whether Christ’s Passion operated by way of sacrifice? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod passio Christi non fuerit operata per modum sacrificii. Veritas enim debet respondere figurae. Sed in sacrificiis veteris legis, quae erant figurae Christi, nunquam offerebatur caro humana, quinimmo haec sacrificia nefanda habebantur, secundum illud Psalmi, effuderunt sanguinem innocentem, sanguinem filiorum suorum et filiarum, quas sacrificaverunt sculptilibus Chanaan. Ergo videtur quod passio Christi sacrificium dici non possit. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s Passion did not operate by way of sacrifice. For the truth should correspond with the figure. But human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices were reputed as impious, according to Ps. 105:38: And they shed innocent blood: the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan. It seems therefore that Christ’s Passion cannot be called a sacrifice. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in X de Civ. Dei, quod sacrificium visibile invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, idest sacrum signum, est. Sed passio Christi non est signum, sed magis significatum per alia signa. Ergo videtur quod passio Christi non sit sacrificium. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that a visible sacrifice is a sacrament—that is, a sacred sign—of an invisible sacrifice. Now Christ’s Passion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other signs. Therefore it seems that Christ’s Passion is not a sacrifice. Praeterea, quicumque offert sacrificium, aliquid sacrum facit, ut ipsum nomen sacrificii demonstrat. Illi autem qui Christum occiderunt, non fecerunt aliquod sacrum, sed magnam malitiam perpetraverunt. Ergo passio Christi magis fuit maleficium quam sacrificium. Obj. 3: Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite, as the very word sacrifice shows. But those men who slew Christ did not perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong. Therefore Christ’s Passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Ephes. V, tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph 5:2): He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness. Respondeo dicendum quod sacrificium proprie dicitur aliquid factum in honorem proprie Deo debitum, ad eum placandum. Et inde est quod Augustinus dicit, in X de Civ. Dei, verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur ut sancta societate Deo inhaereamus, relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni quo veraciter beati esse possumus. Christus autem, ut ibidem subditur, seipsum obtulit in passione pro nobis, et hoc ipsum opus, quod voluntarie passionem sustinuit, fuit Deo maxime acceptum, utpote ex caritate proveniens. Unde manifestum est quod passio Christi fuit verum sacrificium. Et, sicut ipse postea subdit in eodem libro, huius veri sacrificii multiplicia variaque signa erant sacrificia prisca sanctorum, cum hoc unum per multa figuraretur, tanquam verbis multis res una diceretur, ut sine fastidio multum commendaretur; et, cum quatuor considerentur in omni sacrificio, ut Augustinus dicit in IV de Trin., scilicet cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, quid offeratur, pro quibus offeratur, idem ipse qui unus verusque mediator per sacrificium pacis reconciliat nos Deo, unum cum illo maneret cui offerebat, unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat, unus ipse esset qui offerebat, et quod offerebat. I answer that, A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and hence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed. But, as is added in the same place, Christ offered Himself up for us in the Passion: and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ’s Passion was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says farther on in the same book, the primitive sacrifices of the holy Fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being prefigured by many, in the same way as a single concept of thought is expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness: and, as Augustine observes, (De Trin. iv), since there are four things to be noted in every sacrifice—to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered—that the same one true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice might continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer and what He offered. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet veritas respondeat figurae quantum ad aliquid, non tamen quantum ad omnia, quia oportet quod veritas figuram excedat. Et ideo convenienter figura huius sacrificii, quo caro Christi offertur pro nobis, fuit caro, non hominum, sed aliorum animalium significantium carnem Christi. Quae est perfectissimum sacrificium. Primo quidem quia, ex eo quod est humanae naturae caro, congrue pro hominibus offertur, et ab eis sumitur sub sacramento. Secundo quia, ex eo quod erat passibilis et mortalis, apta erat immolationi. Tertio quia, ex hoc quod erat sine peccato, efficax erat ad emundanda peccata. Quarto quia, ex eo quod erat caro ipsius offerentis, erat Deo accepta propter caritatem suam carnem offerentis. Unde Augustinus dicit, in IV de Trin., quid tam congruenter ab hominibus sumeretur quod pro eis offerretur, quam humana caro? Et quid tam aptum huic immolationi quam caro mortalis? Et quid tam mundum pro mundandis vitiis mortalium quam sine contagione carnalis concupiscentiae caro nata in utero et ex utero virginali? Et quid tam grate offerri et suscipi posset quam caro sacrificii nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri? Reply Obj. 1: Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects, yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure. Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ’s flesh is offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, but of animals, as denoting Christ’s. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men, and is partaken of by them under the Sacrament. Second, because being passible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Third, because, being sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourth, because, being the offerer’s own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of His charity in offering up His own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. iv): What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our Priest? Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus ibi loquitur de sacrificiis visibilibus figuralibus. Et tamen ipsa passio Christi, licet sit aliquid significatum per alia sacrificia figuralia, est tamen signum alicuius rei observandae a nobis, secundum illud I Pet. IV, Christo igitur passo in carne, et vos eadem cogitatione armamini, quia qui passus est in carne, desiit a peccatis; ut iam non hominum desideriis, sed voluntati Dei, quod reliquum est in carne vivat temporis. Reply Obj. 2: Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative sacrifices: and even Christ’s Passion, although denoted by other figurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by us, according to 1 Pet. 4:1: Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men, but according to the will of God. Ad tertium dicendum quod passio Christi ex parte occidentium ipsum fuit maleficium, sed ex parte ipsius ex caritate patientis fuit sacrificium. Unde hoc sacrificium ipse Christus obtulisse dicitur, non autem illi qui eum occiderunt. Reply Obj. 3: Christ’s Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers’ part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, and not the executioners. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum passio Christi fuerit operata nostram salutem per modum redemptionis Whether Christ’s Passion brought about our salvation by way of redemption? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod passio Christi non fuerit operata nostram salutem per modum redemptionis. Nullus enim emit vel redimit quod suum esse non desiit. Sed homines nunquam desierunt esse Dei, secundum illud Psalmi, domini est terra et plenitudo eius, orbis terrarum et universi qui habitant in eo. Ergo videtur quod Christus non redemerit nos sua passione. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s Passion did not effect our salvation by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what never ceased to belong to him. But men never ceased to belong to God according to Ps. 23:1: The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof: the world and all they that dwell therein. Therefore it seems that Christ did not redeem us by His Passion. Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., Diabolus a Christo iustitia superandus fuit. Sed hoc exigit iustitia, ut ille qui invasit dolose rem alienam, debeat privari, quia fraus et dolus nemini debet patrocinari, ut etiam iura humana dicunt. Cum ergo Diabolus creaturam Dei, scilicet hominem, dolose deceperit et sibi subiugaverit, videtur quod non debuit homo per modum redemptionis ab eius eripi potestate. Obj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): The devil had to be overthrown by Christ’s justice. But justice requires that the man who has treacherously seized another’s property shall be deprived of it, because deceit and cunning should not benefit anyone, as even human laws declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery deceived and subjugated to himself man, who is God’s creature, it seems that man ought not to be rescued from his power by way of redemption. Praeterea, quicumque emit aut redimit aliquid, pretium solvit ei qui possidebat. Sed Christus non solvit sanguinem suum, qui dicitur esse pretium redemptionis nostrae, Diabolo, qui nos captivos tenebat. Non ergo Christus sua passione nos redemit. Obj. 3: Further, whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that Christ paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not redeem us by His Passion. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Pet. I, non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternae traditionis, sed pretioso sanguine, quasi agni immaculati et incontaminati, Christi. Et Galat. III dicitur, Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum. Dicitur autem pro nobis factus maledictum, inquantum pro nobis passus est in ligno, ut supra dictum est. Ergo per passionem suam nos redemit. On the contrary, It is written (1 Pet 1:18): You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled. And (Gal 3:13): Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Now He is said to be a curse for us inasmuch as He suffered upon the tree, as stated above (Q. 46, A. 4). Therefore He did redeem us by His Passion. Respondeo dicendum quod per peccatum dupliciter homo obligatus erat. Primo quidem, servitute peccati, quia qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati, ut dicitur Ioan. VIII; et II Pet. II, a quo quis superatus est, huic et servus addictus est. Quia igitur Diabolus hominem superaverat inducendo eum ad peccatum, homo servituti Diaboli addictus erat. Secundo, quantum ad reatum poenae, quo homo erat obligatus secundum Dei iustitiam. Et haec est servitus quaedam, ad servitutem enim pertinet quod aliquis patiatur quod non vult, cum liberi hominis sit uti seipso ut vult. I answer that, Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first of all, by the bondage of sin, because (John 8:34): Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin; and (2 Pet 2:19): By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave. Since, then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil’s bondage. Second, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held fast by God’s justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it is the free man’s condition to apply himself to what he wills. Igitur, quia passio Christi fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro peccato et reatu generis humani, eius passio fuit quasi quoddam pretium, per quod liberati sumus ab utraque obligatione. Nam ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfacit sive pro se sive pro alio, pretium quoddam dicitur quo se redimit a peccato et poena, secundum illud Dan. IV, peccata tua eleemosynis redime. Christus autem satisfecit, non quidem pecuniam dando aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed dando id quod fuit maximum, seipsum, pro nobis. Et ideo passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio. Since, then, Christ’s Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to Dan. 4:24: Redeem thou thy sins with alms. Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price—Himself—for us. And therefore Christ’s Passion is called our redemption. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo dicitur esse Dei dupliciter. Uno modo, inquantum subiicitur potestati eius. Et hoc modo nunquam homo desiit Dei esse, secundum illud Dan. IV, dominatur excelsus in regno hominum, et cuicumque voluerit, dabit illud. Alio modo, per unionem caritatis ad eum, secundum quod dicitur Rom. VIII, si quis spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius. Primo igitur modo, nunquam homo desiit esse Dei. Secundo modo, desiit esse Dei per peccatum. Et ideo, inquantum fuit a peccato liberatus, Christo passo satisfaciente, dicitur per passionem Christi esse redemptus. Reply Obj. 1: Man is said to belong to God in two ways. First of all, in so far as he comes under God’s power: in which way he never ceased to belong to God; according to Dan. 4:22: The Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will. Second, by being united to Him in charity, according to Rom. 8:9: If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. In the first way, then, man never ceased to belong to God, but in the second way he did cease because of sin. And therefore in so far as he was delivered from sin by the satisfaction of Christ’s Passion, he is said to be redeemed by the Passion of Christ. Ad secundum dicendum quod homo peccando obligatus erat et Deo et Diabolo. Quantum enim ad culpam, Deum offenderat, et Diabolo se subdiderat, ei consentiens. Unde ratione culpae non erat factus servus Dei, sed potius, a Dei servitute recedens, Diaboli servitutem incurrerat, Deo iuste hoc permittente propter offensam in se commissam. Sed quantum ad poenam, principaliter homo erat Deo obligatus, sicut summo iudici, Diabolo autem tanquam tortori, secundum illud Matth. V, ne forte tradat te adversarius tuus iudici, et iudex tradat te ministro, idest Angelo poenarum crudeli, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Quamvis igitur Diabolus iniuste, quantum in ipso erat, hominem, sua fraude deceptum, sub servitute teneret, et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad poenam, iustum tamen erat hoc hominem pati, Deo hoc permittente quantum ad culpam, et ordinante quantum ad poenam. Et ideo per respectum ad Deum iustitia exigebat quod homo redimeretur, non autem per respectum ad Diabolum. Reply Obj. 2: Man by sinning became the bondsman both of God and of the devil. Through guilt he had offended God, and put himself under the devil by consenting to him; consequently he did not become God’s servant on account of his guilt, but rather, by withdrawing from God’s service, he, by God’s just permission, fell under the devil’s servitude on account of the offense perpetrated. But as to the penalty, man was chiefly bound to God as his sovereign judge, and to the devil as his torturer, according to Matt. 5:25: Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer—that is, to the relentless avenging angel, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xi). Consequently, although, after deceiving man, the devil, so far as in him lay, held him unjustly in bondage as to both sin and penalty, still it was just that man should suffer it, God so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the penalty. And therefore justice required man’s redemption with regard to God, but not with regard to the devil. Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia redemptio requirebatur ad hominis liberationem per respectum ad Deum, non autem per respectum ad Diabolum; non erat pretium solvendum Diabolo, sed Deo. Et ideo Christus sanguinem suum, qui est pretium nostrae redemptionis, non dicitur obtulisse Diabolo, sed Deo. Reply Obj. 3: Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for man’s deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption—His own precious blood—not to the devil, but to God. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum esse redemptorem sit proprium Christi Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse redemptorem non sit proprium Christi. Dicitur enim in Psalmo, redemisti me, domine Deus veritatis. Sed esse dominum Deum veritatis convenit toti Trinitati. Non ergo est proprium Christo. Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Redeemer, because it is written (Ps 30:6): Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, the God of Truth. But to be the Lord God of Truth belongs to the entire Trinity. Therefore it is not proper to Christ. Praeterea, ille dicitur redimere qui dat pretium redemptionis. Sed Deus pater dedit filium suum redemptionem pro peccatis nostris, secundum illud Psalmi, redemptionem misit dominus populo suo; Glossa, idest Christum, qui dat redemptionem captivis. Ergo non solum Christus, sed etiam Deus pater nos redemit. Obj. 2: Further, he is said to redeem who pays the price of redemption. But God the Father gave His Son in redemption for our sins, as is written (Ps 110:9): The Lord hath sent redemption to His people, upon which the gloss adds, that is, Christ, who gives redemption to captives. Therefore not only Christ, but the Father also, redeemed us. Praeterea, non solum passio Christi, sed etiam aliorum sanctorum, proficua fuit ad nostram salutem, secundum illud Coloss. I, gaudeo in passionibus pro vobis, et adimpleo ea quae desunt passionum Christi in carne mea pro corpore eius, quod est Ecclesia. Ergo non solum Christus debet dici redemptor, sed etiam alii sancti. Obj. 3: Further, not only Christ’s Passion, but also that of other saints conduced to our salvation, according to Col. 1:24: I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for His body, which is the Church. Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to Christ, but also to the other saints. Sed contra est quod dicitur Galat. III, Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum. Sed solus Christus factus est pro nobis maledictum. Ergo solus Christus debet dici noster redemptor. On the contrary, It is written (Gal 3:13): Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. But only Christ was made a curse for us. Therefore only Christ ought to be called our Redeemer. Respondeo dicendum quod ad hoc quod aliquis redimat, duo requiruntur, scilicet actus solutionis, et pretium solutum. Si enim aliquis solvat pro redemptione alicuius rei pretium, si non est suum, sed alterius, non dicitur ipse redimere principaliter, sed magis ille cuius est pretium. Pretium autem redemptionis nostrae est sanguis Christi, vel vita eius corporalis quae est in sanguine, quam ipse Christus exsolvit. Unde utrumque istorum ad Christum pertinet immediate inquantum est homo, sed ad totam Trinitatem sicut ad causam primam et remotam, cuius erat et ipsa vita Christi sicut primi auctoris, et a qua inspiratum fuit ipsi homini Christo ut pateretur pro nobis. Et ideo esse immediate redemptorem est proprium Christi inquantum est homo, quamvis ipsa redemptio possit attribui toti Trinitati sicut primae causae. I answer that, For someone to redeem, two things are required—namely, the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man pays a price which is not his own, but another’s, he is not said to be the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now Christ’s blood or His bodily life, which is in the blood, is the price of our redemption (Lev 17:11, 14), and that life He paid. Hence both of these belong immediately to Christ as man; but to the Trinity as to the first and remote cause, to whom Christ’s life belonged as to its first author, and from whom Christ received the inspiration of suffering for us. Consequently it is proper to Christ as man to be the Redeemer immediately; although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity as its first cause. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Glossa sic exponit, tu, Deus veritatis, redemisti me in Christo clamante, in manus tuas, domine, commendo spiritum meum. Et sic redemptio immediate pertinet ad hominem Christum, principaliter autem ad Deum. Reply Obj. 1: A gloss explains the text thus: Thou, O Lord God of Truth, hast redeemed me in Christ, crying out, ‘Lord, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.’ And so redemption belongs immediately to the Man-Christ, but principally to God. Ad secundum dicendum quod pretium redemptionis nostrae homo Christus solvit immediate, sed de mandato patris sicut primordialis auctoris. Reply Obj. 2: The Man-Christ paid the price of our redemption immediately, but at the command of the Father as the original author. Ad tertium dicendum quod passiones sanctorum proficiunt Ecclesiae, non quidem per modum redemptionis, sed per modum exhortationis et exempli, secundum illud II Cor. I, sive tribulamur pro vestra exhortatione et salute. Reply Obj. 3: The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Cor. 1:6: Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum passio Christi fuerit operata nostram salutem per modum efficientiae Whether Christ’s passion brought about our salvation efficiently?